Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):"I'll disagree. The only thing I can think of that makes this complicated is that there are people who are attracted to the same sex who would be influenced by what people think they should do, and live a heterosexual lifestyle. It doesn't make them less attracted to the same sex."

"I think people that struggle with their sexuality don't struggle because they can't decide. They struggle because they know that being gay makes life harder. Choosing to admit that you are gay is a life changing event."

Since I think you're both basically saying the same thing, I'll just disagree with both at once. While the word "sex" is being tossed around, I don't think either of you believe that a sex act has to take place since your stance indicates that one is born gay/straight. That it's not a choice. I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, if you read into what I was asking, I think some people are born being attracted to both or neither sex. Let's just start with the asexual person. They just have no interest. However, at some point, they meet a person they connect with. A best friend so to speak. Doesn't matter if it's the same or different sex. They commit to the person and, eventually sex becomes part of their life. Are they straight or gay based on that action?

I disagree with the premise. I don't think people are born asexual. A bisexual gets to choose.

So you think people are born gay/straight/bisexual but not asexual?

Do you recognize how that sounds?

If biz were smarter, he'd be all over it.

I don't think that's unreasonable. I've never met an asexual person before and I can't think of ever hearing about one. If that happens, then sure, that person gets to choose also. So what?

So, if you haven't met one they must not exist?

Do you recant your statement that a person couldn't be born asexual? If so, answer the initial question.

No, I'm saying that I don't think people are born asexual. I think everyone is born with some sort of attraction. For the sale of argument, lets assume it happens. That asexual person gets to choose, assuming they want to choose, to have a gay or straight relationship, just like a bisexual.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):So, to recap, everyone is born with an attraction to men, women or both. No one is born with an attraction to neither.

It is impossible for one to change, or determine later in life, the sex they're attracted to.

Got it.

I suppose it's possible for people to be asexual. But they are asexual.

I determined I was attracted to women around age 12. People have been "confused" before, yes, and it takes them longer to figure it out. But you're arguing they do figure it out. And who they ultimately are attracted to determines their sexuality.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 4:41:00 PM (view original):When your argument is blown to ****, run from your statements.

Got it.

What exactly am I running from? Did the asexual person choose to be asexual? Of course not. Just like you didn't choose to be straight and gay person A didnt choose to be gay.

Anyone can make the choice to be in a certain kind of relationship, but I'd guess that there are very, very few non-gay people choosing to be in gay relationships. And again, it's really irrelevant to the marriage question.

It's not impossible for me to go to Orioles games, just more difficult. It's not a FORCED choice to see the A's more often, it's just easier.

One thing being easier or more difficult than another is a factor that can influence your choice. That doesn't somehow mean it isn't a choice in the first place.

Sometimes we reject our natural preferences because things are just easier or less expensive that way. But we'd be happier if we could just as easily pursue our preferences.

We don't always get what we want, though, so we have to find a way to make what we THINK will be the best decision, and even then we are sometimes wrong. We can't always say what will or would have made us happier, as some decisions are too complex, and some may leave us wondering "what if" about the other option or options.

And if society and the government removed the obstacles that exist for homosexual couples relative to heterosexual couples, many more biological homosexuals would pursue homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships.

Perhaps this would be true, but as I already said, there are many more factors at work here than attraction, society, and the government.

Of course, you didn't address the real point because you realize I'm right and that your attempt to compare homosexuality to career choices was stupid from the outset...

No, I addressed exactly what you said because the comparison between homosexuality and other terms we give to people based upon their actions was completely accurate and continues to remain so.

The only thing that is "stupid from the outset" was your decision to try to compare unwilling choices to willing choices, something I see you have now wisely abandoned.

A) What "many factors" are at work aside from attraction, society, and the government? Possibly desire to copulate. That's about all I can think of that's likely to be even remotely significant relative to those things.

And B)

No, I addressed exactly what you said because the comparison between homosexuality and other terms we give to people based upon their actions was completely accurate and continues to remain so.

You're now being deliberately obtuse, because the point nearly everyone aside from you is trying to make is that homosexuality is NOT a term that should given based upon actions but rather upon preferences. That being homosexual is more like being an Orioles fan than being a lawyer, in that sense. And you still have done absolutely nothing to convince me that homosexuality SHOULD be a term based upon actions rather than preferences. You simply continue to assert that it is so. Why is it so? You have now ignored this question twice, presumably because you don't have an answer. Why is being gay or straight more like being a lawyer than being an Orioles fan?

You're arguing that sexuality isn't a choice, which is the agenda-based attempt to make the above moot when it in fact it is all that matters.

Have you? When? What are they? Because I call bullshit.

Sure I have.

People can and DO lead full, productive and happy lives when they don't choose their preferences in life. In fact, most people choose a significant other who only matches some of their preferences because trying to find them all in one person can prove difficult (and in some cases, impossible). So unless your significant other is every preference you've ever had, then you did the same thing. Does that mean you're unhappy since you didn't get all your preferences? Probably not unless something else is happening to make that the case. Most times gender is an important preference; sometimes its not as important. It depends on the person.

Also, someone who chooses a gender other than their preference may go on to lead a happy life because they discover they value other things more importantly than their preferred gender, the same way you might find value in someone who isn't as (insert attribute here) as much as you might prefer.

I said things that weren't criminal. Please pay attention.

You asked for things that are looked down on in society and I provided a list. You don't get to dictate what parts of that list suit you.

People who enjoy S&M have equal rights.

This wasn't about rights but about a list of people who are looked down upon by society.

What "many factors" are at work aside from attraction, society, and the government? Possibly desire to copulate. That's about all I can think of that's likely to be even remotely significant relative to those things.

People choose who they want to be with based upon more factors than I could even think of to list here, so I'm not going to bother trying. The point is that it's not always about attraction - people can make choices based upon whatever they want, and they do.

You're now being deliberately obtuse, because the point nearly everyone aside from you is trying to make is that homosexuality is NOT a term that should given based upon actions but rather upon preferences.

I realize what "nearly everyone" is trying to do, and they are failing to do so.

There is absolutely ZERO logical reasoning why sexuality (including homosexuality) should violate all the methods we use to define what people are by the actions they take while all the other terms continue to function in the normal (and logical) way.

And you still have done absolutely nothing to convince me that homosexuality SHOULD be a term based upon actions rather than preferences.

You must be skipping a lot in this long thread. Understandable, but you're asking me to repeat the argument I already made pages ago. Nutshell: Almost all terms we assign to people are based upon actions. There is no reason sexuality should be any different.

Why is being gay or straight more like being a lawyer than being an Orioles fan?

I've answered the question (the underlying one) many times throughout this thread, including twice directly above in this response.

I'm still waiting for a detailed explanation of the specific thought process that biz used to "choose" to be heterosexual.

Of course, he'll continue to refuse to produce one because his assertion that sexuality is entirely a choice is complete bullshit that he is unable to defend with any kind of argument that makes sense. He'll just continue to hide behind "LOGIC!" and the idea that none of us can appropriately understand or apply logic like he can. Apparently, because he's special.

Which very similar to the way that he tried to defend Socialism last fall. When it was pointed out that virtually every implementation of a Socialist economy has eventually failed, he "explained" that it was because Socialism was never implemented "properly". Though he could never define what that meant, yet continually claimed that he did, but that none of us intellectual inferiors could understand it as he does.